We were accused of this about 15 years ago - we had been digging a giant hole since we needed a bunch of fill dirt (and we thought a pond might be nice someday in the future), but a storm cause the nearby creek to divert into our new "pond". Someone complained and EPA came out to investigate. PAIN in the rear.

We got out of any fines because we had the permits for the hole and it was obvious that the stream had diverted naturally, so we actually received permission to re-divert the creek until we were done with our hole and then divert it back into the hole afterwards. Woot!

The EPA is telling my dad to break down an earth dam that was built by the wpa, which forms a pond just big enough to water our cattle. My dad will ignore the EPA until they start threatening big money. Fighting something till you go bankrupt is not smart.

mbillips:Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

Well, and the article says that the property owner claims to have a letter exempting him. Seems that should be easy to prove. Either the state has been given the authority to handle this and have given him the permit he needs or they haven't.

Unfortunate, but the truth is that nobody really has their "own property." Every scrap of land belongs to the government, and "ownership" is more like a bizarre stewardship wherein you pay taxes for the privilege of maintaining it for them.

People who think their "property" is a little kingdom of freedom from the government have no idea of reality.

Ambitwistor:I guess what's unclear here is whether the EPA is wrong for saying that he needed an ACE permit, or Wyoming State Engineer is wrong for saying that his permit was sufficient.

The state engineer probably erred. I didn't even know a person could get a permit to damn a creek up like this guy claims to have done.

We did have a similar case near me, where a couple dammed up a creek and did what they dubbed "restorative work" to sections of the creek. It cost the state a lot of money to fix the problems they introduced.

Can't remember if they got the permits though. This was years ago too.

Boloxor the Insipid:People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention. In fact, you can do so if you have a permit. This guy got a permit. He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming. The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero. This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.

While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.

Hmmm... the Feds have the ultimate authority over "navigable waterways", which, under Federal law are defined as being waterways 3ft deep or deeper, and Congress has delegated authority over "navigable waterways" to the Army Corps of Engineers. *If* the stream in question is in that category, then Wyoming has to have permission from the ACE to grant permits to block said waterways, and also probably has to inform the ACE of such blockages. And the ACE will probably ask for an Environmental Impact Statement on said blockage that says, when all is said and done "No impact", before telling the state to allow said blockage. And good luck with getting the EPA to approve a blockage. If the state of Wyoming issued a permit, there were probably conditions attached that were not followed somewhere which is what is bringing the EPA down on these people.

Based on the article, I have a lot of sympathy. But so far, we're only hearing his side of the story.

There are some very good reasons why you can't just build a dam anyplace you want, even if you own the property. As to the "I have a permit", I could get a permit to build a house, but that wouldn't give me the right to damn up the nearby creek. That permit may not say exactly what he wants us to think it says. It may be issued by someone without authority. It may have limitations which he isn't meeting.

To me, the #1 thing is "is it doing any harm". If his damn is keeping water away from people downstream, that's an issue. If it's unsafe, that's an issue. If it is somehow actually causing ecological harm (fertilizer runoff? I dunno) then that might be an issue. If there is no actual harm, then I'm all in favor of leaving him alone.

boyvoyeur:Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you diddamning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

ClavellBCMI:Hmmm... the Feds have the ultimate authority over "navigable waterways", which, under Federal law are defined as being waterways 3ft deep or deeper, and Congress has delegated authority over "navigable waterways" to the Army Corps of Engineers.

It's better than that.

The EPA has decided (with a suggested rule change) that any land which has water flowing over it, ever, is a "waterway" or a "wetland," and that they should have jurisdiction over it. Which means, effectively, every piece of land in the US. They decided to go about this by deciding that ditches and puddles less than three feet deep are "connected to navigable waterways." Even when they aren't. Maybe they're connected spiritually or something.

So when that rainwater from your roof flows into the low spot in the back yard, you're suddenly dealing with a "wetland" that's connected to a "navigable waterway."

ClavellBCMI:Hmmm... the Feds have the ultimate authority over "navigable waterways", which, under Federal law are defined as being waterways 3ft deep or deeper, and Congress has delegated authority over "navigable waterways" to the Army Corps of Engineers. *If* the stream in question is in that category, then Wyoming has to have permission from the ACE to grant permits to block said waterways, and also probably has to inform the ACE of such blockages. And the ACE will probably ask for an Environmental Impact Statement on said blockage that says, when all is said and done "No impact", before telling the state to allow said blockage. And good luck with getting the EPA to approve a blockage. If the state of Wyoming issued a permit, there were probably conditions attached that were not followed somewhere which is what is bringing the EPA down on these people.

States are typically delegated authority to permit and regulate water quality and discharge. Modification to Waters of the U.S., such as modifying the creek, generally remains the jurisdiction of the USACE. He probably needs to file what's call a Joint Permit Application to document the project, which is then routed to the USACE and any other stakeholder agencies.

dstrick44:Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention. In fact, you can do so if you have a permit. This guy got a permit. He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming. The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero. This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.

With no Corps permit and untreated water leaving his property he's probably screwed.When you're dealing with existing water bodies and making changes to the watershed you need multiple permits.He should have hired a civil engineer.The he would at least have someone to blame

I agree with you. You probably would need several permits and any time in this current era you are dealing with water you would need help to stay in bounds.

Granted with Opposing Views website we get almost no correct information. But the guy is probably screwed. "I went and got me a dang permit ! " isn't really a defense for anything these days.

FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.

dkulprit:iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.

Here in MI if you use a backhoe to clear beach grasses you could go to jail, I can't imagine what they would do to you if you dammed a waterway. I have to imagine the only way you get that permit (a dam) is if there is a hydroelectric generator or 20 in the mix as well.

mbillips:Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

CoE was intended to support NAVIGABLE water ways...like most government functions, the CoE and EPA aren't content with their current calling and are constantly seeking to do more and more. The courts have repeatedly biatch slapped them down multiple times for getting involved in creeks and streams that aren't able to be utilized for military or commercial water transportation.

Yakk:dkulprit: iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.

Here in MI if you use a backhoe to clear beach grasses you could go to jail, I can't imagine what they would do to you if you dammed a waterway. I have to imagine the only way you get that permit (a dam) is if there is a hydroelectric generator or 20 in the mix as well.